The Catholic Trumpet: The Neo-SSPX Now Discourages Conditional Confirmation

[Stone]

The Neo-SSPX Now Discourages Conditional Confirmation

The Catholic Trumpet [slightly adapted and reformatted] | May 15, 2025

Source: “Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation” by Fr. Nicholas Mary, CSSR, published in Ite Missa Est (SSPX Great Britain, Jan–Feb 2025). Available at:

https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-cond...tion-52375

In 2025, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) quietly published an article that would have stunned its own founder. Titled “Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation” and authored by Fr. Nicholas Mary, CSSR, the piece discourages conditional Confirmation for faithful who were confirmed in the post-Vatican II rite. Unless the faithful can produce concrete evidence that their specific Confirmation was invalid—such as the wrong form, the wrong oil, or an invalid minister—they are told not to seek conditional Confirmation. Just “being unsure” is no longer enough.

This position stands in direct contradiction to the sacramental practice and pastoral theology of +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who—faced with the same crisis—routinely conditionally confirmed souls because the new rite was doubtful in matter, form, minister, and intention.

Let us examine the issue clearly.

I. The 2025 SSPX Position: Trust the Novus Ordo, Unless You Can Prove Otherwise

In Ite Missa Est (Jan–Feb 2025), the SSPX’s UK District published Fr. Nicholas Mary’s article answering a question many traditional Catholics ask: “I was confirmed in the Novus Ordo—should I be conditionally confirmed in the traditional rite?”

His answer:

“We can reply: no, unless you have positive grounds to doubt that your specific Confirmation was invalid when it happened. Otherwise, be at peace.”

— Fr. Nicholas Mary, CSSR, “Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation,” Ite Missa Est (SSPX UK), Jan–Feb 2025.

Fr. Nicholas Mary argues that:
Conditional Confirmation should not be sought unless there is a prudent doubt based on probable reasons
Sacraments that imprint a character, such as Confirmation, cannot be repeated without grave sin if valid
Seeking conditional Confirmation “just to be sure” may constitute sacrilege, even if done with good intentions.

He concludes that the Novus Ordo Confirmation rite is valid per se and that unless a specific defect can be demonstrated—such as proof of invalid matter (e.g., chrism not made of olive oil), or an invalid minister—one should presume validity.


II. +Archbishop Lefebvre: Conditional Confirmation Was the Norm, Not the Exception

This directly contradicts the position and practice of +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

“I confirm because the faithful fear that their children have not received the grace of Confirmation… I may not refuse those who request that their Confirmation be valid… We are clearly at a time when divine natural and supernatural law takes precedence over positive Church law…”

— Archbishop Lefebvre, A Bishop Speaks (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1975), pp. 275–276.

Lefebvre’s practice was based on the following doctrinal reasons:

1. Matter

Chrism must be made from olive oil. The Church always used this, and no other oil was ever accepted until Paul VI changed the law in 1972. +Archbishop Lefebvre held that if the matter of a sacrament is changed, its substance may be invalidated.

“The Church has always and exclusively used olive oil in the confection of the sacred chrism… No other kind of oil… can be employed… In the West, no theologian ever contested that olive oil was indispensable to the validity of chrism.”

— Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Vol. II, cols. 2401–2402.

“I recognize the validity of the new Latin formula. I use the old formula to meet the wishes of the faithful and for safety’s sake, keeping to formulas which have communicated grace for centuries with certainty.”

— Archbishop Lefebvre to the CDF, quoted in The WM Review, “Archbishop Lefebvre and Conditional Confirmation,” July 2024.

2. Form

The traditional form—“I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation…”—was replaced in the Novus Ordo with “Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.” Lefebvre warned that many bishops shortened or even changed the formula.

“There is no Confirmation if he does not say, ‘I confirm thee in the name of the Father…’”

— Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon at Écône, 1980s, cited in The Angelus.

3. Minister

The post-1968 rite of episcopal consecration is itself doubtful. +Archbishop Lefebvre conditionally ordained priests and questioned the validity of new bishops’ orders.

“We do not know if these sacraments are valid. That is why we conditionally ordain. We take no risks with the sacraments.”

— Archbishop Lefebvre, Écône Conference, 1979.

4. Intention

To confect a sacrament, the minister must intend “to do what the Church does.” Lefebvre noted that modernist clergy often redefine sacraments, reducing Confirmation to a mere rite of passage or personal expression of faith.

“This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy.”

— Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics (Angelus Press), p. 9.

Thus, Lefebvre always conditionally confirmed those who had only received the Novus Ordo rite. It was his regular pastoral practice, and he never required exhaustive investigations or documentation. Moral doubt sufficed.


III. What Canon Law and Catholic Theology Say

The 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders… cannot be repeated. But if a prudent doubt exists about whether really and validly these sacraments were conferred, they are to be conferred again under condition.”

— Canon 732 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Fr. Henry Davis, SJ, leading 20th-century moral theologian:

“A sacrament that is doubtfully valid must not be used. To do so is gravely sinful. The sacrament must be repeated conditionally if the validity is not morally certain.”

— Fr. Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. III, p. 25.

And from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“The conditional form of Baptism is to be used only when after due inquiry doubts are entertained as to the validity of the previous Baptism. In no other case is it ever lawful to administer Baptism a second time, even conditionally.”

— Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, “Baptism.”

These laws and principles support Lefebvre’s approach: in a climate of liturgical corruption and doctrinal confusion, prudent doubt is sufficient to justify conditional repetition.


IV. Post-2012 Compromise: Why the SSPX Changed

In April 2012, Bishop Fellay officially submitted the Doctrinal Declaration to Rome, which stated:

“We declare that we accept… the sacramental rites… legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.”

— Doctrinal Declaration, April 15, 2012, §4.

This was the first time the SSPX leadership formally accepted the “legitimacy” of the new rites. Unlike Bishop Fellay’s 2012 Doctrinal Declaration—which was submitted to Rome without retraction and accepted the legitimacy of the New Mass and the Council—+Archbishop Lefebvre refused to sign such a declaration in 1988. Though he initially initialed the Protocol under pressure, he publicly retracted it the next day, calling it a grave mistake that would lead to ‘Operation Suicide.’”

Afterward:

• In 2015, Pope Francis recognized SSPX confessions as valid and licit.
  
• In 2017, Rome granted SSPX marriage faculties under diocesan bishops.
  

Since then, the SSPX leadership has softened:

• No more routine conditional confirmations
  
• No more strong language about the new rites being doubtful
  
• Public affirmation of the validity of post-Vatican II sacraments unless proven otherwise
  

Fr. Nicholas Mary’s article reflects this policy.


V. The Law of Non-Contradiction

You cannot affirm both positions at once.

Either the new Confirmation is objectively doubtful, and conditional Confirmation is prudent and pastoral (Lefebvre’s position),

Or it is to be presumed valid unless proven otherwise (the Neo-SSPX position).

Both cannot be true. One is faithful to the Catholic principle of suprema lex, salus animarum. The other follows a path of human approval and ambiguity.


VI. Fidelity to Lefebvre and the Spirit of St. Athanasius

St. Athanasius withstood exile and persecution for rejecting semi-Arian bishops. He famously said:

“They have the churches, but we have the Faith.”

— St. Athanasius, 4th century.

+Archbishop Lefebvre followed the same principle. He conditionally confirmed because he would not take risks with the sacraments. He did not accept a “rite“ that might be invalid. He believed the Church cannot command doubtful sacraments, and the faithful have a right to sacramental certainty.

The SSPX in 2025 tells the faithful:

“Unless you can prove your Confirmation was invalid, be at peace.”

But peace does not come from assuming grace. It comes from knowing it. And that is why conditional Confirmation is not extremism, but fidelity.

“We do not play with the sacraments. We supply what is missing, for the good of souls.”

— Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Ecône Conference, 1981.

A Word To the Faithful

If you were confirmed in the Novus Ordo “rite,”and you do not have moral certainty that it was valid—

You have the right to be conditionally confirmed.

This is not scrupulosity. It is fidelity.

This is not rebellion. It is clarity.

This is not nostalgia. It is the Church’s eternal law.

Certainty. Validity. Grace.

That is what +Archbishop Lefebvre defended.

That is what the new SSPX no longer offers.